Ömer Ozan YILDIZLI, İbrahim ÜNTAN, Deniz DEMİRCİ

What is the consistency between the results of needle biopsy and prostatectomy specimen pathology results? A pilot study

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to establish the relationship between the needle biopsy and the pathology result after radical prostatectomy administrated for prostate cancer. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 67 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy from 2016 to 2019. All surgeries and all biopsies were performed in the third author’s urology department. Samples were collected through 12-core biopsy under local anesthesia. All specimens were studied in the pathology department of the third author’s center. The results evaluated were needle biopsies’ Gleason scores and prostatectomy specimens’ Gleason scores. Results: Inclusion criteria were not having any neo-adjuvant treatment and being treated with surgery after needle biopsy. Gleason scores obtained from needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens were evaluated. The comparison revealed that 39% of the tumors were undergraded, 7% were overgraded, and 54% had exact scoring in needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens according to the detailed Gleason scoring as primary and secondary metrics. The patients were grouped into five categories according to the ISUP 2014 prostate cancer grading system. The relationship was strong with 64% of results staying in the same group after the operation; nevertheless, the correlation remained weak based on the kappa coefficient. Conclusion: The information obtained from the needle biopsy is not a strong herald of the pathological result. Urologists should have awareness of this restraint when utilizing the needle biopsy’s Gleason score in decision making and treatment planning.Key words: Accuracy, biopsy pathology, correlation, prostate cancer, prostatectomy pathology

PDF

___

1. Chang AJ, Autio KA, Roach M 3rd, Scher HI. High-risk prostate cancer-classification and therapy. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 2014; 11: 308-323. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.68
2. Bjurlin MA, Taneja SS. Standards for prostate biopsy. Current Opinion in Urology 2014; 24(2): 155-161. doi: 10.1097/ MOU.0000000000000031
3. Lepor H. Selecting treatment for high-risk, localized prostate cancer: the case for radical prostatectomy. Reviews in Urology 2002; 4(3): 147-152. PMCID: PMC1475986
4. Khoddami M, Khademi Y, Kazemi Aghdam M, Soltanghoraee H. Correlation between Gleason scores in needle biopsy and corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens: a twelve-year review. Iranian Journal of Pathology 2016; 11(2): 120-126. PMID: 27499772 PMCID: PMC4939641
5. Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG. Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Reviews in Urology 2008; 10(4): 262-280. PMID: 19145270 PMCID: PMC2615104
6. Overduin CG, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO. MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Current Urology Reports 2013; 14(3): 209-213. doi: 10.1007/s11934-013-0323-z
7. Weiss B, Loeb S. MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy versus standard 12-core biopsy. Reviews in Urology 2015; 17(2): 113- 115. doi: 10.3909/riu0670b
8. Yuasa T, Tsuchiya N, Kumazawa T, Inoue T, Narita S et al. Characterization of prostate cancer detected at repeat biopsy. BMC Urology 2008; 8: 14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2490-8-14
9. Epstein JI, Sanderson H, Carter HB, Scharfstein DO. Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005; 66(2): 356-360. doi: 10.1016/j. urology.2005.03.002
10. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology 2016; 40(2): 244-252. doi: 10.1097/ PAS.0000000000000530.
11. Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World Journal of Oncology 2019; 10(2): 63-89. doi: 10.14740/wjon1191
12. Akbulut Z, Atmaca AF, Demirci DA, Doğan B, Canda AE et al. What would happen if neurovascular bundles were left behind in radical retropubic prostatectomy? Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 2103; 43: 448-454. doi: 10.3906/sag-1209-71
13. Jewett MA, Fleshner N, Klotz LH, Nam RK, Trachtenberg J. Radical prostatectomy as treatment for prostate cancer. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2003; 168(1): 44-45. PMID: 12515785 PMCID: PMC139318
14. Lepor H. Selecting candidates for radical prostatectomy. Reviews in Urology 2000; 2(3): 182-189. PMID: 16985772 PMCID: PMC1476131
15. Lepor H. Management of clinically localized prostate cancer. Reviews in Urology 2004; 6 Suppl 2: S3-S12. PMID: 16985859 PMCID: PMC1472856
16. van Wijk Y, Halilaj I, van Limbergen E, Walsh S, Lutgens L et al. Decision Support Systems in Prostate Cancer Treatment: An Overview. Biomed Research International 2019; 2019: 4961768. doi: 10.1155/2019/4961768
17. Westover K, Chen MH, Moul J, Robertson C, Polascik T et al. Radical prostatectomy vs radiation therapy and androgensuppression therapy in high-risk prostate cancer. BJU International 2012; 110(8): 1116-1121. doi: 10.1111/j.1464- 410X.2012.11012.x
18. Treurniet KM, Trudel D, Sykes J, Evans AJ, Finelli A et al. Downgrading of biopsy based Gleason score in prostatectomy specimens. Journal of Clinical Pathology 2014; 67(4): 313-318. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201323
19. Presti JC. Prostate biopsy: current status and limitations. Reviews in Urology 2007; 9(3): 93-98. PMID: 17934565 PMCID: PMC2002498
20. Boesen L. Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer. Danish Medical Journal 2017; 64(2): B5327. PMID: 28157066
21. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound imagefusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. European Urology 2015; 67(4): 787- 794. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.077
22. Mills SE, Fowler JE Jr. Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 1986; 57(2): 346- 349. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19860115)57:2<346::aidcncr2820570226>3.0.co;2-e
23. Garnett JE, Oyasu R, Grayhack JT. The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason’s classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. Journal of Urology 1984; 131(4): 690-693. doi: 10.1016/s0022- 5347(17)50583-2
24. Lattouf JB, Saad F. Gleason score on biopsy: is it reliable for predicting the final grade on pathology? BJU International 2002; 90(7): 694-699. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02990.x